But in accepting the above, it does not logically follow that they inturn wanted us to take the “Capt.’s. Cabin is on deck 12” (or any other such example) as “gospel”. And I don’t believe for a second that there is a shred of real evidence that there was any “grand plan” or that the writer/producers used such references because they knowingly meant to, and that they wanted the audience to take it all literally! This is a whole different colored horse; and I don’t think it demonstrates a lack of respect to acknowledge as much.
I don't believe that either. Star Trek's prime purpose was to deliver good stories about the human condition and those technical details we observe and discuss definitely had a much lesser priority.
The most obvious example, IMHO, is the recycling of the aft view VFX footage of the pilot version Enterprise
during the regular series. To rationalize this with retracting warp nacelle spheres, inflating sensor-deflector dishes and extendable Bridge modules is rationalization overkill, IMHO. It makes you wonder why they didn't shoot any aft view footage after
they had changed the pilot 11-footer (otherwise they could have just continued to use the pilot version of the model for continuity's sake).
With the Deck 12 issue it's a different matter. There are other first season references to lower decks ("The Enemy Within", "Dagger of the Mind") with circular corridor footage and most definitely later near the Hangar Deck ("Doomsday Machine", "Immunity Syndrome").
If you don't like circular corridors in the engineering hull (neither do I) it's a matter of personal preference, but the series established it pretty much that these are there, regardless whether we like them or not and for reasons we don't know.
If you start writing it of as a production mistake you go down the same road as Franz Joseph who also ignored stuff he didn't like (like Chapel's Red Cross insignia, obviously not being aware that Dr. McCoy is not only an M.D. but also a scientist and therefore does not wear the Red Cross but the insignia of the science division).
So who is the more arrogant one?
Me for saying we shouldn't jump to premature and biased conclusions (at the expense of the fine people who gave us Star Trek) or the one claiming it's a production mistake (an accusation at the expense of the aforementioned and a suggestion that this person knows better, though it was never involved with the actual production, just like Franz Joseph).
This way we can respect his [Franz Joseph's] choices (as we should anyone else’s) but at the same time fix some of the things he got wrong?
I don't see there's any way we could or should respect his choices (i.e. ignore or alter things he didn't like about Star Trek's production).
He wasn't involved in any aspect of the actual production of Star Trek.
He based the success of this works on the back of others and, worse, wasn't faithful to their designs but altered these.
If he felt he knew better how to do this or that he should have created his own franchise.